Search form

He's a Frog, Stupid!

Women say they want sensitive, emotionally attentive men, yet they choose guys who are six payments behind on their Harleys and spend the greater part of their days trying to find space for their next tattoo or explore extraneous body parts to pierce. These relationships are not headed for the altar; they are previews for the Jerry Springer Show. Even more perplexing is when a woman obtains the affection of a jerk, she then tries to transform the jerk into a sensitive, emotionally attentive man. This behavior is illogical. It makes no sense to go to a junkyard, buy a clunker, and then spend the rest of your life trying to transform the clunker into a new car. This behavior is like a bunny chasing an alligator. The alligator will forever remain an alligator and one day he will turn around and eat the bunny because this is the nature of alligators. Don't blame the alligator for being an alligator. If you are a bunny chasing an alligator at least have the common sense to put on an alligator suit. Better yet, stop chasing alligators.

Fairy tales may contribute to women's strange dating behavior. In the story of the frog and the prince, a princess kissed a frog and the frog magically turned into a prince. Ladies, this is only a fairy tale. This is not real life. If a woman's kiss has the power to turn a frog into a prince, then logically a woman's kiss has the power to turn a prince into a frog. This is not the case. When the princess fell in love with the frog and kissed him, she fell in love with a frog not a prince. It would stand to reason that the princess would abhor the prince because he is no longer the creature with whom she fell in love, a love sufficient to justify a kiss. In the end, it was not a frog the princess desired; she wanted a prince. If this were the case, then why didn't the princess go to a castle to meet a prince instead of going to a swamp with the unlikely probability of finding a prince wearing a frog suit?

Perhaps love is the answer. In the fairy tale beauty and the beast, the beauty fell in love with the beast after discovering his better qualities. News flash - serial killers are nice when they are not killing people. A woman's love, no matter how deep, does not have the power to reform serial killers. Nor does a woman's love have the power to transform jerks into sensitive, emotionally attentive men. Love is not a feeling. Love is action. The emotional feelings associated with love are the byproduct of the way in which you behave toward the person you love and the way in which the person you love behaves toward you. If love had the power to change people, then why do people cheat on their spouses?; Why do children grow up to be criminals?; and Why do friends betray one another? Women often remark that nice guys are boring. Ladies, if you want excitement, go skydiving. Do not confuse excitement with love. Another common remark is that women often feel unworthy of being with nice guys. This is crazy talk. If you feel unworthy of being with a nice guy, then you should experience ecstasy when you are with a jerk, not depression, which is often the case because you really think you deserve a sensitive, emotionally attentive man.

The answer is simple. Choose a man like you shop for a dress. If you want to buy a formal dress, you would go to upscale stores not thrift shops. Shopping for a formal dress could take up to several months. Each dress is painstakingly examined for size, fit, color, workmanship, and coordination with accessories. After rejecting scores of dresses, you make your selection. The long search is worth the effort because in the end the dress is a perfect fit for you and only you. Don't spend more time shopping for a dress than you do shopping for the right man. A dress is for one night; the right man is for a lifetime commitment and good days together, forever.

“Love is not a feeling. Love is action.”
Thank you. I’m a man with very powerful emotions and after years of watching myself I’ve learned something: My emotions are temporal and can be controlled. One of my favorite exercises is Zig Ziglar’s “I love my ___ because” statements. He uses the example of a job. He tells people to list all the benefits that you really have and say with energy for example “I love my job because I get paid!” and so on. This is not wishful thinking. It is simply reminding your mind of the truth. With a few exceptions, I’ve found that negative emotions are a result of your mind only remembering the bad and ignoring the good. Reminding yourself of the good puts your mind back into rational balance.
Within reason, I believe that you can take actions to manipulate your emotions however you want. If I want to cry, I will watch a sad scene from my favorite anime. If I want to feel manly, there is music that will invoke that feeling. If I want to feel like life is not as bad as my depressed mind thinks, I just tell my mind all the real/true good things that life has to offer. These strategies work as long as you are willing to admit that you CAN have self control and not let your emotions run your life. Use your emotions as a force for good, not as a detriment.
Getting back to the quote, notice that I can take actions to create feelings. If the romance has died, then as a couple, the two people need to talk about what actions create feelings of love. Don’t play silly games like “if I have to tell him/her it won’t work.” That’s just childish. Tell your partner what you need and hear what they need. Try it.
We often talk about “anger management strategies” because we acknowledge that anger (an emotion) can be controlled through a process of actions. It can grow and shrink. It can be trained. It can be focused. Love is no different.

I just wanted to comment on what the author said about how love isn't the answer.

"If love had the power to change people, then why do people cheat on their spouses?; Why do children grow up to be criminals?; and Why do friends betray one another?"

I think it might be good to point out that children who grow up to be criminals often grew up in neglectful/abusive home (therefore an absence of love).

Love does have the power to change/shape people. It depends on how you define "love". I don't think "love" is the right word here to use. Friends betray one another because of an absent of love (that they have for their friendship). People cheat on one another because of an absence of love (as an example: women who grew up fatherless or abused by their fathers may often be promiscious). It's often the absence of love and nuturing in one's childhood development that allows negative behaviours or patterns to flourish.

What I think people in relationships should be aware of is that enabling destructive negative behaviour is not love - it's desperation, and warrants self-examination. Sometimes walking away from a destructive relatinship is the most loving thing to do for yourself, your family and your significant other. It shows respect (love for yourself) and hopefully, it may teach the other person some lessons. It may not. However, I keep love out of it, as most folks attracting unhealthy relationships have no idea what love really is.

Dear author.
I think there is much truth behind your article and the reality you try to depict here. And my reaction will be on how I understood your article. It might of course be that I didn't understand it the way you meant it, this would be too bad. Either way I would love to hear a response to my comment.

In your article, I certainly miss the psychological sensitivity. What you do in your article is using flat, dull analogies that don't really grasp the matter of what you try to explain.
For example the "shopping" example. When women shop dresses, they try several dresses in several stores and can then, after having tried several dresses, choose which one they want to buy. However, when women "try out" several guys, they mostly don't have the option to go back to the first or second one. Therefore, it's easier said than done to just leave a person that you once thought would be the one for you.

First, there comes prior commitment. People tend to stick to the choices they made. It's not always beneficial, but it's human. On the other hand, several psychological studies show the superiority of intuition over second thoughts. So, would it be wise to leave a person, because some of his behaviors don't please you? Or might it be a better choice to try to work things out with the person your together with? After all, every single one of us is a human with feelings and needs. There is no specific "kind" or people that are pure assholes (or frogs, as you name it). That's pretty much over-polarizing.
To some degree, your article advertises promiscuity and might lead unreflective readers to leave his/her partner because of some minor problems that couldn't be resolved in the short run. If one thinks like you argue in your article, people can't change (well, according to research they don't - at least not on personal traits) and can't adapt. As I understand your article, it also implies that people don't have the possibility to change their BEHAVIOR towards a more loving relationship and the ONLY logical consequence would be to leave the partner and look for a new one. But doesn't this go against any idea of couples therapy and all communication models?

So why else would a person not leave his partner in face of difficulties? You have anticipated regret. A person thinks about what will happen when she makes a decision, however bold. What if the person can't find a better partner and will be lonely for the rest of his/her life? What if the person finds no partner as good as the one (s)he's living with right now? Are these thoughts stupid? Or illogical? I don't think so. I think it would be even more stupid to NOT have these thoughts, because you wouldn't stick to any of your choices, behave impulsively and loose the ability to effectively plan ahead.
That's by the way one of several characteristics of people with psychopathy, who you briefly broached in your article. However, the prevalence of psychopathy is less then 1% in the general population, and most psychopaths are not serial killers, so your argument about the serial killers doesn't serve any purpose but to intimidate the reader. It's a straw man argument.

But let's regard it from the other perspective. Why do women choose for "frogs" in the first place? Guy that are regarded as "assholes" (however, mostly so by other guys, and less often by other women - I think it's a little ironic that a male author wrote this article). Why would any woman choose such an "asshole" to be her partner, when this partner isn't worth it either way?

Because he has self-confidence, humor and autonomy. He eradiates strength and security. That's what women want. Mostly, he knows what he wants and knows how to get it. Does this make him an asshole? Definitely not. This makes him attractive. Of course there are guys that simply don't care about their girlfriends and don't give them the affection they need. However, there are also girls that don't care about their boyfriends. That's just the way it is.
And STILL this doesn't make the person a frog.
It just means that the person has some unresolved issues. When people behave like this it doesn't mean they are bad people or they are unchangeable. It just means that they're also human as you and I. It means they have needs and desires that are not being met in their relationship.
Many people don't have real access to their needs and have difficulties to figure out why they feel the way they feel or to explain why they act the way they act. The best response here isn't to leave the person and find a new partner. This way you will never be able to find the right person, because you don't change your concept of love. This then entails that you can only be with the person that is born to fit with you from the first moment on. Have fun searching.
For all the guys that live in reality I have a better advice: Try to find out whats causing your partner to behave the way he behaves and why it bothers you so much. Try to figure out together how you can compromise so that everyone gets their needs met. Maybe it's primary your problem because you're hypersensitive. Maybe it's primary his problem because he doesn't pay attention. There is a whole bunch of possibilities. But before you leave a person, labelling him as "frog", only based on some discontent, try to find out what's really going on in your relationship. If this doesn't work, you can still decide to leave.

In the end it's the feeling that guides you the right way, not the thinking. If you feel happy even though sometimes you're pissed because your partner did something stupid, the right decision is to stay. If you feel unhappy even though sometimes your partner makes you feel good, it's time to leave.

It's not what kind of person your partner is, that should guide your decision, it's what you feel personally.

Agreed. There are a lot of oversimplified assumptions here concerning the desire and behavior of women that underscores the seriousness of the issue.

Women do not cling to abusive relationships because they're unthinking creatures brainwashed by fairytales. And finding the right, thoughtful, and sensitive partner for a relationship is not comparable to dress shopping.

Really, Buying a dress as a metaphor for dating men...could that be any more sexist? Can this guy even appreciate that many women like clothes but hate shopping. Or that many women don't even shop for dresses. You make shopping for a dress something like what Lucille Ball would do in a dress store...Redonk!

Personally, shopping for that special dress is often fraught with dread and anxiety and rather than spending months shopping for a dress, we procrastinate until the last weekend then often we buy something that seems "to work" in front of that mirror. It's only until we get a closer look, (usually at the event we bought the dress for) that the dress may not work as we thought it did when under the gun to buy it.

The author has conveniently side-stepped a common situation that many women have found themselves in. That is, many frogs are frogs in prince's clothing. I mean, how many men *aren't* on their best behaviour when they're dating a woman they really like? Then, once the woman invests herself in a relationship with him, he starts to let his standards slip - quite often, the woman has too much invested in the relationship to just cut and run. What a pity these men can't be honest about who they really are.

It would only be fair to admit that men sometimes sculpture the truth to get women into bed. But then they have to, because they know what women want. Men are conscripted players in a game whose rules have been engineered by the female mind, and the playbook decrees that honesty will guarantee rejection [and Misogynist Bombs getting dropped right and left]. . .This is a program which females themselves have created and which they continue to promote. Then, with their usual circular thinking, they blame men for their obedience.
- Matthew Fitzgerald

Almost all men will be nodding their heads in agreement at this point.

There was an ad by a woman on a dating site with a phrase which encapsulated this nicely: "You better impress me. You better not BS me."

Here's an easier one: "ok boys, i do not know why i am doing this but i am tired of meeting assholes. i am 5'4, 110lbs, with green eyes and brown hair. i love to party and hang out with my friends. i like bad boys..."

Anytime you gals want to give up wanting fried ice will be just fine with lots of guys.

P.S. - One important thing I think "Jack" missed was that in the fairy tale the frog really was a prince, but he'd been turned into a frog by a spiteful fairy. Think about it.

There is no book. There never was. "What Women Want" is a male fantasy where women are gate-keeper to "What Men Want," and "What Women Want" is a magic key allowing the man to bypass the woman to get the "prize." Sex is something men take from women, rather than something women enthusiastically participate in and even seek out of their own accord.

Guys who play by that book are what we call "Nice Guys®." They blame women when we refuse to put out when he uses the magic key. We're not playing into his hero fantasy so we must all want the monster.

Funny how it's mostly men who claim to be experts on what women want. Maybe if you'd stop trying to define what women want as if women all share a brain you might have better luck.

P.S. Most fairy tales as we know them were written by men, published by men and made famous by men.

The author has conveniently side-stepped a common situation that many women have found themselves in. That is, many frogs are frogs in prince's clothing. I mean, how many men *aren't* on their best behaviour when they're dating a woman they really like? Then, once the woman invests herself in a relationship with him, he starts to let his standards slip - quite often, the woman has too much invested in the relationship to just cut and run. What a pity these men can't be honest about who they really are.

i understand that journalism often requires a person to write from a specific angle or opinion, but this article in my opinion is a little too cynical. how does one define love exactly? i guess it depends on whether or not you believe you have experienced it or not. It is theoritically possible that a person can feel unloved by another when romance and affection are not present in a relationship but perhaps that is more to do with a persons psychological reasoning if someone is not open to affection in the ways their partner is, can it be said that they do not love the other person? or perhaps they have been brought up in an environment where expressing their emotions was difficult and so feel it is hard to communicate their feeling towards others. Love has the power to change the way someone behaves, and even though sometimes love may be brought on by actions, often people act in they way they do because they feel they are in love. so therefore love is a feeling.

Good to know that women's intellect is valued highly enough by the author that he feels the need to tell us fairy tales are not real. Based on his assumptions, I think I feel the need to let him know his stereotypical perception of women is also a fairy tale.

and personally, I constantly NEED to be reminded that fairy tales aren't real. I retreat into fantasy the way alcoholics retreat into drunkenness.

I am one of those women who seems to think that love is best if it will come from someone who isn't very inclined to love me at first, but who then one day, after sufficient exposure to my wonderfulness, slaps himself on the forehead and says, "Oh my! How could I have missed the fact that this is the most wonderful person who ever lived, and she's been right here playing door mat for me for a while now..."

I suggest that you ignore the haters who are leaving the (ironically) stereotypically sarcastic comments.

Wow. What an article! You've really hit the nail on the head for me. Like all women, I too " say [I] want sensitive, emotionally attentive men, yet they choose guys who are six payments behind on their Harleys and spend the greater part of their days trying to find space for their next tattoo or explore extraneous body parts". to pierce". And I just couldn't figure out why, until you came along and mansplained it for me! Thank you for using the succinent metaphor of choosing a dress, as shopping is the only thing my ladybrain understands. And the article tag here is just perfect--"stupid women".

Except for how I'm a lesbian with two bachelor's degrees and a master's. So I guess not all women are looking for bad boys yet are too stupid to realize they're not princes. Gee, wonder if there are more women like me out there?

I think you have got it wrong. This does happen but only with SOME women. As SOME men only want hard case women that treat them bad then claim they want the "nice girl" yet claim she is too needy when meeting one.
There are DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS and women who do this need to check themselves as guys who have knight in shining armor syndrome need to check the women are worthy and not "bad girls. Not all men and /or women do this.
I find most to complain on this subject are the very ones to be bitter hating the other gender types because of one girl/guy who rejected them. Generalize much?

Reasons your analogy means the opposite of what you think it does.
1. "A dress is for one night," after which it ends up in a thrift store.
2. Formal dresses, regardless of where they are purchased, are typically altered to make them fit properly. High end stores frequently offer this service themselves. That's why they fit so well.

No love,
Nezumi

P.S. Sometimes a man is only for one night.

P.P.S. Maybe you should stick to your specialty, "nice guy" deceptions would actually make an awesome topic.

There is also another problem regarding the perspective of how a man chooses a woman. When I was 22 years young, I was a good example of a stupid “knight in shining armor” who was drawn in by a very sly sociopath with large breasts and the ability to lie very convincingly. After being tricked into marriage via a ruse of pregnancy, I spent the next 10 years in turmoil as our relationship spun in circles due to her constant lies and deceit. All this because of the fairy tales of a knight in shining armor; I had to save the besieged maiden from her aggressor (ex-husband). Man was I a fool or what? But your point is well made as we need to choose wisely and at time when we are the least experienced in life.

Well, my story ended rather strangely as when I finally had enough of the never-ending lies and deceit, I filed for divorce. This is where the knight really paid the price and where people should listen to your words of wisdom about choosing wisely (which was the basis of your article). Upon filing for divorce from this very convincing liar and sociopath, she immediately accused me of spousal abuse, child abuse (physical and sexual), and capital crimes against my country (Title 18 stuff). I was no longer the knight in shining armor; I was a victim in the crosshairs of skilled assassin whom only needed words to bring destruction. It is a position in which a person is almost guaranteed to find him or herself in when they choose to believe the “Fairy Tales” we are taught as children.

Like many a fairy tale, there is hope though. The false accusations fell flat as my accuser’s bullets were absorbed by solid investigative work that bore out the details. By now I was in my 30’s and much wiser. Like many who have been badly burned by the fairy tales, I was careful whom I chose to marry the second time around. My wife and I celebrate our 15th wedding anniversary tomorrow. As for the former spouse, she went on perpetrate the same toxic sociopathic behavior in every relationship since and is on husband #4.

If you are currently in a toxic relationship with an abusive (physical and/or mental) person get out as fast as possible. You are only delaying the inevitable and wasting valuable years of your life, years that could be spent with someone who truly loves you.

The last short paragraph in my earlier post is in no way talking to Jack Schafer in regards to his personal situation in life, it instead is talking to all those who might read this post and relate to the situation they find themselves in and need to make a life-changing decision. In regards to Jack, the only personal advice I have is to avoid humor when speaking to attorneys… for everyone knows that most attorneys don’t have a sense of humor!

This article is a piece of sexist nonsense. Congratulations on 400 something words of flawed analogies, generalizations, appallingly condescending language, discrimination and failure to use anything close to resembling accurate research methods.

"It's only an opinion piece," will perhaps be the outcry to my comment from anyone who wants to defend this bullshit article. My response: your opinion is based on years upon years of sexist socialization and is so off-base that I'm laughing.

A relationship involves 2 individuals. pA & pB, not just one. These individuals are separate & autonomous. pA cannot "feel" anything for pB. They also cannot start getting twisted if pB does not comply with their own ideas about the universe. So lets run reality:

If pB is a JOY in interacting with pA (they give pA stuff, including attention & affirmation) & pB is TRUSTworthy (they do not actively breach pA's trust) then pA will start to feel LOVE towards pB.

For a full loving relationship to occur, you must also have the reciprocal occurring. Specifically:

If pA is a JOY in interacting with pB (they give pB stuff, including attention & affirmation) & pA is TRUSTworthy (they do not actively breach pB's trust) then pB will start to feel LOVE towards pA.

Explicitly said: We INVOKE the feeling of love in someone else by our own actions. You cannot demand it from them. You can only coax it out of them by how you are behaving. With regards to a relationship, BOTH parties have to behave (communicate) in such a way to keep that feeling happening in the other.

Typically (using classical patriarchal history & nature)..

A man tries to be a JOY (he gives the woman stuff, both material & emotional) plus he behaves in a TRUSTworthy way (he is monogamous). What should happen is the woman "falls in LOVE" with the man. It requires work to feed the equation.

A woman tries to be a JOY (she gives the man stuff, like sex & some services) plus behaves in a TRUSTworthy way (she is monogamous & appears honest) then the man will feel LOVE towards the woman. It requires work & sacrifice to feed & maintain the equation in balance.

All anyone can do is make sure their part of the equation is happening. If they put in the effort then the dynamic becomes self sustaining.

NOW BLOW IT TO HELL. Enter the psychologist who will refuse to label a modern feminist woman for what she IS, a narcissistic sociopath. A psychologist (& many women) will frame the woman as the only member of a system dynamic & then not acknowledge their own mistake in this one sided incorrect analysis.

The woman is not a JOY to be around (she demands attention) and she behaves in an unTRUSTworthy way (she is forever attempting to manipulate the man - passive aggressive or covert aggressive behavior) in some delusional attempt to steal LOVE. It doesn't work that way. What ever feeling of LOVE the man had now collapses. You are left with a man shutting down & a woman bitching (we have ALL seen this).

So as far as "He's a Frog, Stupid!" the better advice would be "Stop trying to cheat at the game, play by the rules" These rules are seen in nature.

Of course the typical narcissistic sociopath female will never take responsibility for her own part in a dynamic. If this has become the majority in modern times then..

Listen Up Men..

WOMEN (these modern majority) are narcissistic sociopaths. To be happy, get an air tight pre-nup, throw money at the woman, stroke her EGO perpetually (take acting classes & practice lying), & make sure you have a secret REAL life (work away from the B & have a hooker account). This is nothing new, better yet would be to educate men in high school as to mental illness so that these women (bipolar, borderline) can be eliminated from the gene pool.

Relationships take two. If you do not like the person you are with then do not continue with them. You can only control your own behaviors. These women who kiss frogs are only abusive by nature. Do not try to change / control / mold your chosen mate into something they are not (that is abusive), if you are alone do not blame the world, take responsibility for your part.

"All of the men I end up with are frogs.." may be true but know that the solution for this is "..maybe I should stop being a croaking fat toad".